As
UN Shields DRC
Rape Units,
Its Logic is
Secrecy, Its
Scribes File
Complaints
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, March
11 -- If the
UN is
belatedly
announcing,
after Press
questions for
more than
three months,
that it has
written to two
units of the
Congolese Army
to prosecute
for the 126
rapes at
Minova
in late
November or
face
suspension of
UN support --
why not
identify
the units?
UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous
refused on
camera to
answer Inner
City Press
questions
about the
Minova rapes
on November
27, December
7 and December 18, when he directed his
spokesperson
to seize the
UNTV
microphone to
try to avoid
the Inner City
Press
question.
Then
after Inner
City Press asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon about
Ladsous' and
the UN's
inaction on
the rapes on
March 5,
suddenly DPKO
on March 7
convened
friendly
scribes who
had not asked
about the
rapes.
DPKO
told them of a
letter to two
unidentified
Congolese Army
units on
February 4 --
more than a
month before
the briefing
-- and of a
deadline,
which it would
not specify.
These refusals
were not noted
in the
scribes'
stories.
On
March 8 Inner
City Press
asked Ladsous
- without
answer - then
Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
what the
deadline is.
There was no
answer.
At the next UN
noon briefing
on March 11,
Inner City
Press asked
Nesirky
WHY the UN
will not
disclose the
identity of at
least the
army units:
Inner
City Press:
there is a
follow-up I
want to ask
you about the
rapes in
Minova. I
tried to
figure out why
at this point
DPKO
[Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations],
if they have
first
privately
briefed and
then publicly
announced that
they have
warned two
units of the
Congolese army
to begin
prosecutions
or that
support will
be
suspended, why
they won’t
identify the
units.
I’ve
asked you
before whether
it is the 802
and 1001
regiments, but
what I
am trying to
understand is,
it’s not about
due process
for an
individual. It
seems like
these are
units that
they have
written to,
that either
we’ll
prosecute and
that will be
public, or
they will
suspend aid
and I am
assuming that
will be
public. And I
would like
you to confirm
that if and
when MONUSCO
[United
Nations
Operation
Stabilization
Mission in the
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo]
suspends aid
to these two
units, if they
do it, will
that be
public,
and if so,
what’s the
rationale for
not
identifying
the units at
this time? It
seems to be a
form of
impunity or a
grace period
or
three strikes
and you are
out. I just
want to know,
what’s the
thinking
behind it?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
The thinking
behind it is
that there is
a process
under
way. You have
noted that
there have
been warnings
that have been
sent to the
relevant
authorities,
and there is a
deadline
there, and
after that
point, if the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
deems
it to be
necessary,
they will then
do as they
have said and
they
would limit or
stop or
suspend
support to
those units.
However, at
this point,
this is
something that
is still in
train, there
is still
a process
under way, and
that’s the
simple logic
behind it.
Inner
City Press: in
thinking it
through, it
seems like if
they
prosecute,
that would be
public, it
seems to me.
Even from the
UN’s point of
view, there
probably needs
to be closure
to the story.
So, one way
or another,
either they
will say,
these are the
two units and
they
did prosecute,
and that’s
great, or they
will say,
these are the
two units they
didn’t
prosecute, and
they are out.
But it seems
like either
way, the units
are going to
have to be
made public,
so
why keep them
back in a way
that makes the
policy look
less than
meaningful...
to some?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
I am glad you
added that bit
at the end.
Inner
City Press:
Sure.
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
I think that
you have
explained the
logic
yourself. You
might not
agree with it,
but you have
explained the
logic, and I
don’t really
have anything
further to add
on that.
But
what is
the logic? Is
the UN
planning to
try to keep it
secret,
either
prosecution or
suspension of
support? What
kind of “Human
Rights Due
Diligence
Policy” is
this?
Click
here to see
short video,
third in #LADSOUS2013
series.
Meanwhile
as
partially
recounted
above, after
Ladsous' DPKO
on March 7
sought out
friendly
journalists to
spin about the
February 4
letter, Inner
City Press on
March 8 asked
Ladsous, which
two units and
what's the
deadline?
Ladsous
refused to
answer, and
another
journalist at
the UN
Security
Council
stakeout
asked Inner
City Press
about it.
Inner City
Press
answered, and
AFP's
Tim Witcher
hissed, “lies
and
distortions.”
Inner City
Press
replied, as it
already had in
writing,
“lapdog.”
But
on March
11 Inner
City Press was
informed by UN
Security that
Witcher
and the
Reuters'
correspondent
had converted
this verbal
interchange
into a
security
complaint.
Inner City
Press has
asked to see a
copy
of the
complaint, and
has asked what
rules apply,
and if there
are
any rules
about
frivolous or
pretextual
complaints.
Only at the
UN.
Watch this
site.
, 
